IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijplur/v4y2013i2p138-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How formalism shapes perception: an experiment on mathematics as a language

Author

Listed:
  • Jakob Kapeller
  • Stefan Steinerberger

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of mathematics as a conversational tool in economics. Based on the observation that mathematics is understood as an alternative language to express theoretical concepts and ideas, this paper reports experimental results trying to estimate the potential effects such a use of mathematics as a conversational tool may carry. These results refine certain intuitive statements about the role of mathematics in economic discourse and expose some unexpected effects in merit of further study. In particular, the results show that on average the mere presence of mathematics makes a problem seem more difficult, that mathematical knowledge is primarily attributed to specific training, that using mathematical expressions may decrease the proportion of people able to understand a certain argument and that mathematical arguments are more likely to convince men than women.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakob Kapeller & Stefan Steinerberger, 2013. "How formalism shapes perception: an experiment on mathematics as a language," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(2), pages 138-156.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijplur:v:4:y:2013:i:2:p:138-156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=55441
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Anwesha Mukherjee & Theodore L. Turocy, 2020. "That’s the ticket: explicit lottery randomisation and learning in Tullock contests," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 405-429, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijplur:v:4:y:2013:i:2:p:138-156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=319 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.